[Withdrawn] End of NuLagoon Operations

[Nagalim]

As NuLagoon has become increasingly unresponsive and unuseful to our liquidity operations, it will no longer be paid for by shareholders.

–Start–
NuLagoon operations will end at the next pay period. After this motion passes, NuLagoon will be allowed to settle once more (for less than $5000 by contract) and will cease operation.
–End–

[Sentinelrv]

Can you provide some background on what the problems are and why this is necessary? I’m not up to date on the situation, thanks.

[Nagalim]

[Passed] Motion to regulate rules of fund management in NuLagoon

So basically, NuLagoon is violating 1 and 2 by not running any NuBots (which means we don’t actually need a motion to stop paying them, but motions are cleaner). As far as I can grasp, the idea is to use NuLagoonTube instead, or something. I am convinced NuLagoonTube is Tier 3 and cannot be independently verified. This is fine, as long as NuLagoon also has T1 and T2, like they say they will but don’t actually.

And here’s one of the issues it creates:

Current Liquidity

Balancing NuLagoon tube?! We pay 0.1% trading fee plus spread plus 5k/ month?

There are other issues, but they’re super spread out throughout threads. Basically, NuLagoon needs to be running NuBots and either actively balancing with T4 and (other) T3, or giving a means by which T3 and T4 can provide buy or sell side exactly at $1, or spread for the benefit of Nu.

My personal annoyance with them breaking contract is that they have violated a theoretical rule I’ve been developing:

[Withdrawn] T3 Trusted Custodianship @Nagalim

So the question comes down to how T4 distributes funds. NuLagoon's tube actually does very little to change the liquidity situation (though I still totally appreciate the initiative). NuLagoon simply has a limited amount of buy and sellside funds. What's more, NuLagoon balances using arbitrage. While this is a fabulous service for T1-3 fluidity, it really is not the most efficient entry point for T4 because it will attempt to balance itself. What I am proposing increases total liquidity in…

Without running NuBots, I do not see NuLagoon as an MLP, but rather as a third party service that we are subsidizing. Why are we doing that?

[Nagalim]

@henry Am I overreacting? Did you just have a Nu 2.1 failure and you will have 10% back on T1 on an exchange other than NuLagoon soon? Or have you really replaced NuBot with NuLagoonTube?

[henry]

@henry Am I overreacting?

Yes, you are.
Two reasons overlapped for less responsive: 1. Long holiday. 2. Trouble caused by Nu v2.1 upgrade.

We can balance Tube ourself, if FLOT think 0.1% fee is too much to pay

[Nagalim]

are you running NuBot?

[henry]

Both Nubot on poloniex and hitbtc are running.

[Nagalim]

I’m having a hard time finding NuLagoon in getliquiditydetails (other than nulagoontube), would you mind letting me know approximately how much T1 liquidity you’ve got in those bots?

[henry]

how much T1 liquidity you’ve got in those bots?

about 10k

[Nagalim]

Thank you

[willy]

Henry, NuLagoon saw a longer outage due to a non mandatory client update. You’ll have to accept that people are not happy with that when other parts of our microsystem manage to finish that update with better results.

Holidays usually don’t suddenly show up in the calendar either.
You have your fixed accounting days, and are mostly posting news on behalf of a team.
A team that gets a good share of the 5k fees every month (1-1.5k?)

@glock’s complaints about your failed accounting / withdrawals, an unbalanced tube (for >24 h) and us not being able to see your t1 liquidity in getliquiditydetails created this reaction from nagalim.
There is also a special attention to our liq ops in general at the moment,which I guess intensified things.

It’s shareholders duty to ask those questions if a before known to be reliable services seems to go down south fast. This is actually the only form of supervision that we have right now.

So is this really a overreaction?

[Ben]

So is this really a overreaction?

No, it is not.

Never trust someone solely by their word, trust them by their actions.

The Nu shareholders pay for a service that did not meet expectations this week. It’s now up to the NuLagoon team to prove through future action that this was simply a confluence of unrelated events.

Shareholders should always be skeptical and continue to question. The last thing we want to do is become complacent, so I appreciate @GLock’s and @Nagalim’s efforts to bring this to the community.

[zoro]

These kind of businesses need to “refresh” users and shareholders confidence and trust constantly.
Confidence and trust are lost when communication is lost.
Even a daily or weekly report of an operation show that all is good.
As a nubot gateway operator i know this well, thus i give daily reports of liquidity and status of my operation.